[Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure

[James White]

I sorta' agree with Ron, but having had a gen I SLO wagon, which looked OK,
but I liked all of the gen IIs better, and was completely revolted by the
gen IIIs altogether. And to top it off was, no MTX, no door pockets, and no
second sun visor!

Wonder if anyother car ever had a double sun visor?
I worked for a company for all of 2 months and had actually ordered  an '87
SLO 4 cyl. No 6's allowed for lowely sales folk. The form had a note, that
if you were in mountains or even hills, a 4 cyl Taurus was not recommended.
The corporate bean counters then suggested a Pontiac GP.  The color choice
was only black or white, because the other colors were clear coat and extra
cost.

I quit these cheap as****  before the SLOOOO... came to go to work for a
small company that paid at the time $.29/mile for my own new car.  Bought a
'88 SLO 3.0L wagon. After 5 years, the SLO 3.0L wagon was paid for and I had
a net gain of about $1000.  Then sold the wagon, for another gain of $2400,
after I bought the '93 SHO, to a poor guy who thought that it had 143k when
it actually had 243k.  However it looked good and ran good (he had somekind
of tech check it out) so we were both happy as the tailights went down the
road....

Jim White - greensho@crown.net
Valparaiso, Indiana
'93  5 SPEED   280k few mods
'95  5 SPEED   250k lots of mods
"double clutch"  it's good for both you and your SHO

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure


> >From a mfrs standpoint, those are not a big deal.....not enough to call
it a
> New Generation. Some of that stuff was common across the Ford line,
anyway,
> and not unique to the Taurus.
>
> FWIW, IMNSHO, etc, I still have some of my original hang-up with the '92
> SHO. To that point, I had never kept a street-driven car for more than 3
> years, and I was looking to buy again in '92. When the '92 SHO came out, I
> became violently nauseated every time I saw one.....well, maybe I
> exaggerate, but to me they were FUGLY. Based on that, I kept the '89 SHO
> (for a total of 10 years). I have come around to where I think that Gen 2s
> are OK, but '92s are still my personal least-favorite SHO. I actually like
> the looks of the Gen 3 SHO better than the Gen 2 (although everything else
> about the Gen 3 is inferior, IMNSHO).
>
> Ron Porter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Prochilo [mailto:gr8sho@prochilo.myserver.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:47 PM
> To: Ron Porter; 'Donald Mallinson'; shotimes@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure
>
>
> Say what?  Obviously you missed the 6 digit odometer, available passenger
> side airbag, new stereo.  <G>  The digital clock might have been different
> too.
>
> On a different point...  Don't know if it's just me, but sometimes I feel
> that the steering wheel on the 92 is too darn big in proportion to the
> interior.
>
> Cheers,
> Carl Prochilo
> 92 Ultra Red Crimson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
> To: "'Donald Mallinson'" <dmall@mwonline.net>; <shotimes@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:06 PM
> Subject: RE: [Shotimes] 10 observations from the 1986 Taurus brochure
>
>
> > I can see their point, though.
> >
> > Really, the '92 just had new sheetmetal, the interior was pretty much a
> '91
> > carryover,
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes